Review Division 2009-0135 (2010.03.09)

Whether a tax invoice without real transaction related to oil purchase has been received

It seems that the purchaser was convicted of being accused of the fact that the purchaser was accused of the material, and the oil payment would have a big difference with the normal business entity by means of the transaction method of cash withdrawal after being transferred to another material account immediately after the deposit. It seems that the purchaser received the processed tax invoice without real transactions.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Man Doz 300

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 126,697,540 in 2008 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2009 and KRW 79,831,710 in 2008 shall be revoked.

쇠지지鹬 u3000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From February 22, 2002, the Plaintiff is an entrepreneur who runs the oil sales business under the trade name of “CC gas station” from AAB BB Dong 79-6.

B. (1) On July 25, 2008, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 744,272,726 from D Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DD Energy”), an oil retailer, on 14 occasions during the first taxation period (from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008), and filed a return on the first-year value-added tax for 2008 with the Defendant after deducting the purchase tax amount under the said tax invoice, and (2) on 208 January 28, 2008 (from July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008), and received a tax invoice of KRW 484,945,455, value-added tax for 10 times from D Energy, and filed a return on the said tax invoice for 208 years by deducting the purchase tax amount from the Defendant.

C. On July 1, 2008, the Director of the Gangseo-gu Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on D Energy and notified the Defendant of this fact by deeming that each of the above tax invoices was prepared only on the data, and the Defendant did not deduct each of the above input tax amounts and notified the Defendant of this fact. On July 1, 2008, the Defendant revised and notified each of the following: (a) Value-Added Tax No. 126,697,540 won (this case’s 1 disposition) and Value-Added Tax No. 2008, Aug. 31, 209 (hereinafter “2 disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 9, 2009, but on March 3, 2010

12. After receiving a decision to dismiss it, the instant lawsuit was filed on June 10, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 8 (including each number), 1, 2, 7, and 8 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Each of the instant tax invoices is based on the actual transaction, which the Plaintiff received oil from D Energy at the time of the transaction, and remitted the price to the account in the name of D Energy, after receiving the business registration certificate, petroleum retail business registration certificate, shipping slips, and each of the instant tax invoices, etc., and then, cannot be deemed as a false tax invoice.

(2) Even if each of the instant tax invoices is different from the facts, the Plaintiff did not know such fact at the time of the transaction, and did not have any negligence.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Each of the tax invoices of this case and the details of the payment are as follows. Of the settlement details, the "alternative payments" are the amount that the plaintiff transferred to a single bank account of D Energy, and the "payment" is the amount that the plaintiff received from the Industrial Bank of Korea for the loan of purchase funds and paid by B2B.

(2) The Plaintiff submitted the DD Energy, Delivery SCC, Transport Vehicle, and Transport Board, Incheon80, 5823 (SG), Incheon86, Incheon831 (SG), Incheon80, 931 (SH), Incheon80, 5870 (SJ), Incheon86, Incheon856 (SK), 7192, 3631 (L), Incheon80, 5871 (MamM), 7192, 7192, 3611 (SN), and 86,9329 (O).

(3) DD에너지는 2006. 7. 1. 이PP을 대표로 하여 QQ에너지 주식회사라는 명칭으로 설립되었으나, 2008. 1. 28. 대표자가 이RR로 바뀌었고 이어 상호도 DD에너지로 변경되었다.

(4) As a result of the tax investigation conducted for the taxable period of 171 in 2008, the head of the Gangseo District Tax Office decided that the amount of KRW 96,92,00,000 equivalent to approximately KRW 99.9% of the total amount of D Energy reported to be KRW 97,05,02,727 and KRW 96,827,99,970 equivalent to approximately 99.9% of the total amount of purchase reported to be KRW 96,890,601,297 and KRW 99.9% of the total amount of purchase reported to be KRW 99.9% of the total amount of KRW 96,89,99,970, which are not accompanied by real transactions, was processed ex officio and charged to the prosecution for the closure of

(5) DD Energy is a purchase of oil from the SS Energy Co., Ltd. and TT Energy Co., Ltd., but in fact, DD Energy has not purchased oil from the above company, but has leased storage facilities (13,00KL - VU UV 642 Co., Ltd. WW) and three transport equipment (60KL - Incheon 86ia 693, Incheon 86ia 694, Incheon 86ia 694, Incheon 86ia 6955) for the registration of petroleum selling business, but there has not been no use of storage facilities and transport vehicles.

(6) On December 29, 2008, the Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment of conviction on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) to the representative director of the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice). On June 22, 2009, the above court issued the processed sales tax invoice of KRW 2,697,654,00,00 to the D Energy without substantial supply of goods or services, and issued the processed sales tax invoice of KRW 2,697,654,00 to the Z and issued the processed sales tax invoice of KRW 2,697,65,00,00 to the Z, which became final and conclusive on December 29, 200, which became final and conclusive on June 29, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each statement of Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence, Eul's evidence of 3 to 9, 12, 14, Eul's evidence of 3 to 6 (including each number), witness lea and handb's testimony

D. Determination

(1) Determination on the first argument

Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an input tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. In this case, the meaning that it is different from the facts is stipulated that if the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction, which is the object of taxation, is only nominal and there is a separate person to whom such income, profit, act or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, etc. belongs shall be liable for tax payment. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that where the necessary entries of a tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the person to whom the goods or service is actually supplied or supplied, notwithstanding the formal entries of a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or service (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617,

The fact that the oil listed in each of the instant tax invoices was actually supplied to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff paid the oil price therefor is not a dispute between the parties.

However, the following circumstances revealed in each of the above facts. (A) It was confirmed that D Energy had been engaged in a small-scale normal transaction even before the representative changed to ER, but D Energy was actually purchased from SS Energy Co., Ltd. and Telecommunication Energy Co., Ltd., but there was no actual purchase of D Energy. However, D Energy cannot be deemed to have actually supplied its own oil to other gas stations such as the Plaintiff, etc. under the circumstances without the purchase of the oil. (c) Since D Energy Co., Ltd. was charged with the crime of receiving a list of total tax invoices by seller and was pronounced guilty, D Energy Co., Ltd. (D Energy Co., Ltd.) cannot be deemed to have been engaged in a normal business since D Co., Ltd. (D Energy Co., Ltd.) was not a 3rd supplier of D Co., Ltd., a false list of total tax invoices by seller, and therefore, D Co., Ltd., a false purchase of D Co., Ltd., a false deposit of D Co., Ltd., a false deposit of D Co., Ltd.

(2) Judgment on the second argument

Furthermore, we examine whether the Plaintiff did not know that each of the tax invoices of this case was nominal, and whether there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who was provided with the tax invoice was not negligent in not aware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the said name, the person who claimed the deduction or refund of the input tax amount shall prove it (Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277 Decided June 28, 20

The evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 10 (including each number) are not sufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not appear to have been aware of the normal structure of oil supply, the method of sale by the industry, and the risk of the sale by the oil industry through diverse experiences on the following facts. (B) The Plaintiff did not check the business registration of D Energy at the National Tax Service’s home page, but did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff did not directly carry out the shipping of Daehan at the time of delivery or that the Plaintiff did not carry out any other transaction at the time of delivery. (c) On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not appear to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to carry out the shipping of Daehan at the time of delivery because it was no more than the first time of delivery, but the Plaintiff did not have been able to have been able to check the actual shipping of Daehan at the time of delivery. (B) On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not appear to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to carry out the delivery of D gas at the time of delivery.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.